Worsens:

During the ongoing Iowahawk suspension / unsuspension / disunsuspension / strike crisis, I suspected that I and the other corporate “suits” at Iowahawk would pull out all stops to discredit me. But I never thought that I would stoop as low as to engage in a whispering campaign accusing me of treason against the United States of America. Sadly, this now appears to be the case. As we all know by now, a mysterious rocket powered missile was spotted over California today. Just as mysteriously, a new meme is appearing on Twitter, somehow linking this event with my recent alleged trip to California and subsequent suspension of myself.

Let me be clear. Yes, I was in California recently. And yes, during my visit I did spend last Thursday at XCOR Aerospace, a manufacturer of suborbital rocket vehicles in Mojave, at the invitation of renowned controversial science space blogger Rand Simberg.

And yes, okay, I sometimes enjoy playing with and/or driving rocket-propelled items. What of it? I have never sought to hide any of this from the public. But for anyone to somehow string these completely unrelated “facts” as evidence of some sort of bizarre master plan on my part to steal a rocket from XCOR and use it in a botched hold up of a Malibu liquor store, well, I mean, come on. That’s just crazy talk. The so-called “facts” being shopped around by Iowahawk’s corporate goons are as coincidental as the unexplained weekend break in and missing equipment at XCOR. If you ask me, the so-called “mystery rocket” was almost certainly fired by UN ships, seeking to enforce war crime sanctions against California for “The Kardashians,” “The Hills,” and “Real Housewives of Orange County.”

I am shocked that myself would suggest that I would be involved in a brazen military attack on what is arguably still part of the United States. At long last, me, have I no shame?

Not that I’ve ever noticed. Neither he nor him would last two minutes if either of them had any shame. And now he’s dragging me in as an accessory. At this point, a suspension without pay is far too lenient. He should be forced to start blogging again without pay.

Who knew that Iowahawk had ethics?

Dear Me:

Effective 8 am this morning, you have been relieved from your duties as Chief Executive Senior Anchor at Iowahawk. The Iowahawk Code of Ethics clearly states (Section 3c[11.05]) that:

Employees of Iowahawk shall, during critical election seasons, remain at their assigned posts and think of cheap blog stunts to suck in the big internet traffic. During the seven days immediately preceding and seven days immediately following a national election, prohibited employee activities include, but are not limited to:

1. Partying with Tim Blair.
2. Driving about aimlessly in a hot rod.
3. Flying to the coast and getting drunk.
4. Moonlighting as a fire insurance ‘consultant’

It has been brought to my attention that during the recent election season you were engaged in at least three of these prohibited activities. Therefore I have no other recourse but to suspend me indefinitely pending my thorough investigation and review into this matter.

As someone partially involved in one of his recent ethical breaches on the coast, I feel some responsibility for this horrific turn in his fate, though I think that Blair should bear the brunt of it. He needs to find a more reasonable employer. And a smarter one. What kind of idiot would suspend Iowahawk? We should start a protest, and a legal defense fund.

Some useful thoughts from Frank J.:

How smart do you have to be to tell if someone else is smart? Hopefully not very smart, because a lot of life — and especially politics — involves asking people to separate the bright from the dimwitted. We can’t figure out or do everything ourselves, so we need to know who the smart people are so we know whom to listen to and entrust with important jobs. But if we incorrectly think morons are smart and listen to them and put them in charge, that would be a disaster.

You could also call it election year 2008.

For some reason, many people thought certain other people — who we can now clearly see are idiots — were smart and should be in charge. So how do we prevent such an error from happening again?

Actually, it was clear to some of us at the time.

Smart people, really smart people, understand the limitations of their knowledge. The tragedy of stupid is that it renders one incapable of recognizing how little they know. One of the endearing features of Forrest Gump was that he understood his limitations. One of the most appalling features of Joe Biden is that he really thinks that he’s the smartest guy in the room (as he told one congressional witness) when it is clear that he is an idiot.

You know how I know that someone is a few ears short of a bushel in the smarts department? When they brag about their IQ. And tell us all how smart they are. To paraphrase Forrest, smart is as smart does. And fortunately, a lot of “smart” people are going to have to go out and get a real job in January, if the voters do what the polls say they will.

Kind of tough being out of work in this economy, though. Particularly when you’re not as smart as you thought you were.

[Update a couple minutes later]

OK, I posted the link and wrote the above before I Read The Whole Thing. So I wasn’t really plagiarizing Frank on the “smart is as smart does” thing (seriously, how dumb would one have to be to plagiarize from a linked article?). It’s just that great (or, errrr…some kind of) minds think alike.

[Late afternoon update]

This discussion (and Ken Anthony’s comment) reminds me of an interesting question that I read once from a conservative (probably over at The Corner). If you had to make a choice (and not to imply that it must be one), which would you rather — that your child be good, or smart? This was a, if not the, major theme of Forrest Gump. It’s also one of the reasons that people who criticized Sarah Palin for not aborting her son are so off base. I have little personal experience, but I’ve heard that sufferers from Down’s Syndrome are generally very nice people. Again, though, not to imply that there is an implicit choice.